[TheClimate.Vote] February 7, 2019 - Daily Global Warming News Digest-

[Richard Pauli]

/February 7, 2019/

[James Hansen talks heating]
*Global Temperature in 2018 and Beyond*
James Hansen - 6 February 2019
Abstract
Global surface temperature in 2018 was the 4th highest in the period
of instrumental measurements in the Goddard Institute for Space
Studies (GISS) analysis. The 2018 global temperature was +1.1C
(~2F) warmer than in the 1880-1920 base period; we take that base
period as an estimate of 'pre-industrial' temperature. The four
warmest years in the GISS record all occur in the past four years,
and the 10 warmest years are all in the 21st century. We also
discuss the prospects for near-term global temperature change.
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/


[Ethics and Climate - Donald Brown]
*The following paper and video explain six things that citizens around 
the world urgently need to know about climate change in light of recent 
science that few people understand.* They include:

1. The extraordinary magnitude of reductions needed
2. The extraordinary speed of reductions needed
3. National economic self-interest is not a legally acceptable
justification for a nation failing to adopt policies needed to
achieve a warming limit goal
4. Scientific uncertainty is not a legally justified excuse for a
nation failing to adopt policies needed to achieve a warming limit goal
5. Developed countries must legally as a matter of equity and
practically reduce their GHG emissions faster than developing countries.
6. Developed nations must legally and practically help finance GHG
emissions reductions and adaptation in developing countries

[from:]
Six Things That Citizens Around the World Urgently Need to Know About 
Climate Change In Light of Several Recent Scientific Reports
https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/11/28/six-things-that-citizens-around-the-world-urgently-need-to-know-about-climate-change-in-light-of-several-recent-scientific-reports/

1. The Immense Magnitude of GHG Reductions Urgently Needed to
Prevent Catastrophic Warming...
2. The Speed of GHG Reductions Needed to Prevent Catastrophic Warming...
3. No Nation may either Legally or Morally use National
Self-interest Alone as Justification for Their Failure to Fully Meet
Their Obligations under the UNFCCC...
4.  Scientific Uncertainty is Not a Legally or Morally Defensible
Justification for Not Adopting Aggressive Climate Change Policy
Responses...
5. High Emitting Developed Countries, Including the United States,
Must Reduce GHG Emissions More Aggressively than Other Countries as
a Matter of Law and Practically to Prevent Dangerous Climate Change...
6. Developed Nations Have a Legal and Moral Duty to Provide
Financial Resources to Assist Developing Nartions with both
Mitigation and Adaptation Programs and this Financial Assistance is
also Practically Indespensible to Prevent Climate-induced Harms in
all Countries...

A video presentation is available at 
https://livestream.com/hu/hulive/videos/185998463
Donald A. Brown
Widener University Commonwealth Law School
Contributing Author, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 5th 
Assessment
dabrown57 at gmail.com
Ethicsandclimate.org
https://ethicsandclimate.org/2018/11/28/six-things-that-citizens-around-the-world-urgently-need-to-know-about-climate-change-in-light-of-several-recent-scientific-reports/



[The Associated Press]
*Fact-checking Trump's State of the Union address*
ENERGY
TRUMP: "We have unleashed a revolution in American energy - the United 
States is now the number one producer of oil and natural gas in the world."
THE FACTS: True, if "we" means Trump and his recent predecessors. It's 
not all to Trump's credit. The government says the U.S. became the 
world's top natural gas producer in 2013, under Barack Obama's 
administration.
The U.S. now leads the world in oil production, too, under Trump. That's 
largely because of a boom in production from shale oil, which also began 
under Obama.
https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/02/06/fact-checking-trumps-state-of-the-union-address/23662638/


[Exerpt from The Uninhabitable Earth: A Story Of The Future, by David 
Wallace-Wells]
*'The devastation of human life is in view': what a burning world tells 
us about climate change *
I was willfully deluded until I began covering global warming, says 
David Wallace-Wells. But extreme heat could transform the planet by 2100
Sat 2 Feb 2019 03.00 EST Last modified on Mon 4 Feb 2019 04.57 EST
I have never been an environmentalist. I don't even think of myself as a 
nature person. I've lived my whole life in cities, enjoying gadgets 
built by industrial supply chains I hardly think twice about. I've never 
gone camping, not willingly anyway, and while I always thought it was 
basically a good idea to keep streams clean and air clear, I also 
accepted the proposition that there was a trade-off between economic 
growth and cost to nature - and figured, well, in most cases I'd go for 
growth. I'm not about to personally slaughter a cow to eat a hamburger, 
but I'm also not about to go vegan. In these ways - many of them, at 
least - I am like every other American who has spent their life fatally 
complacent, and wilfully deluded, about climate change, which is not 
just the biggest threat human life on the planet has ever faced, but a 
threat of an entirely different category and scale. That is, the scale 
of human life itself.

A few years ago, I began collecting stories of climate change, many of 
them terrifying, gripping, uncanny narratives, with even the most 
small-scale sagas playing like fables: a group of Arctic scientists 
trapped when melting ice isolated their research centre on an island 
also populated by a group of polar bears; a Russian boy killed by 
anthrax released from a thawing reindeer carcass that had been trapped 
in permafrost for many decades. At first, it seemed the news was 
inventing a new genre of allegory. But of course climate change is not 
an allegory. Beginning in 2011, about a million Syrian refugees were 
unleashed on Europe by a civil war inflamed by climate change and 
drought; in a very real sense, much of the "populist moment" the west is 
passing through now is the result of panic produced by the shock of 
those migrants. The likely flooding of Bangladesh threatens to create 10 
times as many, or more, received by a world that will be even further 
destabilised by climate chaos - and, one suspects, less receptive the 
browner those in need. And then there will be the refugees from 
sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the rest of south Asia - 140 
million by 2050, the World Bank estimates, more than 10 times the Syrian 
crisis.

My file of stories grew daily, but very few of the clips, even those 
drawn from new research published in the most pedigreed scientific 
journals, seemed to appear in the coverage about climate change we 
watched on television and read in newspapers. Climate change was 
reported, of course, and even with some tinge of alarm. But the 
discussion of possible effects was misleadingly narrow, limited almost 
invariably to the matter of sea level rise. Just as worrisome, the 
coverage was sanguine, all things considered.

  One California fire burned so quickly, evacuees sprinting past 
exploding cars found their sneakers melting to the asphalt
As recently as the 1997 signing of the landmark Kyoto Protocol, 2C of 
global warming was considered the threshold of catastrophe: flooded 
cities, crippling droughts and heatwaves, a planet battered daily by 
hurricanes and monsoons we used to call "natural disasters" but will 
soon normalise as simply "bad weather". More recently, the foreign 
minister of the Marshall Islands in the Pacific offered another name for 
that level of warming: "genocide".

There is almost no chance we will avoid that scenario. The Kyoto 
Protocol achieved, practically, nothing; in the 20 years since, despite 
all our climate advocacy and legislation and progress on green energy, 
we have produced more emissions than in the 20 years before.

In reading about warming, you will often come across analogies from the 
planetary record: the last time the planet was this much warmer, the 
logic runs, sea levels were here. These conditions are not coincidences. 
The geologic record is the best model we have for understanding the very 
complicated climate system, and gauging just how much damage will come 
from turning up the temperature. Which is why it is especially 
concerning that recent research into the deep history of the planet 
suggests that our current climate models may be underestimating the 
amount of warming we are due for in 2100 by as much as half. The authors 
of one recent paper suggested that slashing our emissions could still 
bring us to 4 or 5C, a scenario, they said, would pose severe risks to 
the habitability of the entire planet. "Hothouse Earth", they called it.

Because these numbers are so small, we tend to trivialise the 
differences between them - one, two, four, five. But, as with world wars 
or recurrences of cancer, you don't want to see even one. At 2C, the ice 
sheets will begin their collapse, bringing, over centuries, 50 metres of 
sea-level rise. An additional 400 million people will suffer from water 
scarcity, major cities in the equatorial band of the planet will become 
unlivable, and even in the northern latitudes heatwaves will kill 
thousands each summer. There would be 32 times as many extreme heatwaves 
in India, and each would last five times as long, exposing 93 times more 
people. This is our best-case scenario. At 3C, southern Europe would be 
in permanent drought, and the average drought in Central America would 
last 19 months longer. In northern Africa, the figure is 60 months 
longer: five years. At 4C, there would be 8m more cases of dengue fever 
each year in Latin America alone and close to annual global food crises. 
Damages from river flooding would grow thirtyfold in Bangladesh, 
twentyfold in India, and as much as sixtyfold in the UK. Globally, 
damages from climate-driven natural disasters could pass $600tn - more 
than twice the wealth that exists in the world today. Conflict and 
warfare could double.

Global warming may seem like a distended morality tale playing out over 
several centuries and inflicting a kind of Old Testament retribution on 
the great-great-grandchildren of those responsible, since it was carbon 
burning in 18th-century England that lit the fuse of everything that has 
followed. But that is a fable about historical villainy that acquits 
those of us alive today - and unfairly. The majority of the burning has 
come in the last 25 years - since the premiere of Seinfeld. Since the 
end of the second world war, the figure is about 85%. The story of the 
industrial world's kamikaze mission is the story of a single lifetime - 
the planet brought from seeming stability to the brink of catastrophe in 
the years between a baptism or barmitzvah and a funeral.

Between that scenario and the world we live in now lies only the 
question of human response. Some amount of further warming is already 
baked in, thanks to the protracted processes by which the planet adapts 
to greenhouse gas. But all of the paths projected from the present will 
be defined by what we choose to do now. If we do nothing about carbon 
emissions, if the next 30 years of industrial activity trace the same 
arc upward as the last 30 years, whole regions will become unlivable as 
soon as the end of this century. Of course, the assaults of climate 
change do not end at 2100 just because most modelling, by convention, 
sunsets at that point. In fact, they could accelerate, not just because 
there'd be more carbon in the atmosphere then, but because increased 
temperatures could trigger feedback loops that might send the climate 
system spiralling out of control. This is why some studying global 
warming call the hundred years to follow the "century of hell".

It would take a spectacular coincidence of bad choices and bad luck to 
make a completely uninhabitable Earth possible within our lifetime. But 
the fact that we have brought that eventuality into play at all is 
perhaps the overwhelming cultural and historical fact of the modern era. 
Whatever we do to stop warming, and however aggressively we act to 
protect ourselves from its ravages, we will have pulled the devastation 
of human life on Earth into view - close enough that we can see clearly 
what it would look like, and know, with some degree of precision, how it 
will punish our children and grandchildren. Close enough, in fact, that 
we are already beginning to feel its effects ourselves, when we do not 
turn away.
- -
In southern California, December is meant to bring the start of rainy 
season. Not in 2017. The Thomas fire, the worst of those that roiled the 
region that year, grew 50,000 acres in one day, eventually burning 440 
sq miles and forcing the evacuations of more than 100,000 Californians. 
A week after it was sparked, it remained, in the ominous semi-clinical 
language of wildfires, merely "15% contained". For a poetic 
approximation, it was not a bad estimate of how much of a handle we have 
on the forces of climate change. That is to say, hardly any.

Five of the 20 worst fires in California history hit the state in the 
autumn of 2017, a year in which more than 9,000 separate ones broke out, 
burning through almost 1.25m acres - nearly 2,000 sq miles made soot. 
That October, in northern California, 172 fires broke out in just two 
days - devastation so cruel and sweeping that two different accounts 
were published in two different local newspapers of two different ageing 
couples taking desperate cover in pools as the fires swallowed their 
homes. One couple survived, emerging after six excruciating hours to 
find their house transformed into an ash monument; in the other account, 
it was only the husband who emerged, his wife of 55 years having died in 
his arms.

In the summer of 2018, the fires were fewer in number, totalling only 
6,000. But just one, made up of a whole network of fires, together 
called the Mendocino Complex, burned almost half a million acres alone. 
In total, nearly 3,000 sq miles in the state turned to flame, and smoke 
blanketed almost half the country. Things were worse to the north, in 
British Columbia, where more than 3m acres burned, producing smoke that 
would travel across the Atlantic to Europe. Then, in November, came the 
Woolsey Fire, which forced the evacuation of 170,000, and the Camp Fire, 
which was somehow worse, burning through more than 200 square miles and 
incinerating an entire town so quickly that the evacuees, 50,000 of 
them, found themselves sprinting past exploding cars, their sneakers 
melting to the asphalt as they ran. It was the deadliest fire in 
Californian history.

Two big forces conspire to prevent us from normalising fires like these, 
though neither is exactly a cause for celebration. The first is that 
extreme weather won't let us, since it won't stabilise; even within a 
decade, it's a fair bet that these fires, which now occupy the 
nightmares of every Californian, will be thought of as the "old normal". 
The good old days.

The second force is also contained in the story of the wildfires: the 
way that climate change is finally striking close to home. Some quite 
special homes. The California fires of 2017 burned the state's wine 
crop, blowtorched million-dollar vacation properties, and threatened 
both the Getty Museum and Rupert Murdoch's Bel-Air estate. There may not 
be two better symbols of the imperiousness of American money than those 
two structures. Nearby Disneyland was quickly canopied by an eerily 
apocalyptic orange sky. On local golf courses, the west coast's wealthy 
swung their clubs just yards from blazing fires in photographs that 
could not have been more perfectly staged to skewer the country's 
indifferent plutocracy. Last year, Americans watched the Kardashians 
evacuate via Instagram stories, then read about the private firefighting 
forces they employed, the rest of the state reliant on a public force 
full of conscripted convicts earning as little as a dollar a day.

In Sweden, forests in the Arctic Circle went up in flames. Fires that 
far north are increasing more rapidly than in lower altitudes
By accidents of geography and by the force of its wealth, the US has, to 
this point, been mostly protected from the devastation climate change 
has already visited on parts of the less developed world. The fact that 
warming is now hitting its wealthiest citizens is not just an 
opportunity for ugly bursts of liberal schadenfreude; it is also a sign 
of just how hard, and how indiscriminately, it is hitting. All of a 
sudden, it's getting a lot harder to protect against what's coming.

What is coming? Much more fire, much more often, burning much more land. 
American wildfires now burn twice as much land as they did as recently 
as 1970. By 2050, destruction from wildfires is expected to double 
again. For every additional degree of global warming, it could 
quadruple. At three degrees of warming, our likely benchmark for the end 
of the century, the US might be dealing with 16 times as much 
devastation from fire as we are today, when in a single year 10m acres 
were burned. The California fire captain believes the term is already 
outdated: "We don't even call it fire season any more," he said in 2017. 
"Take the 'season' out - it's year-round."

But wildfires are not an American affliction; they are a global 
pandemic. Each year, between 260,000 and 600,000 people worldwide die 
from the smoke they produce. In icy Greenland, fires in 2017 appeared to 
burn 10 times more area than in 2014; and in Sweden, in 2018, forests in 
the Arctic Circle went up in flames. Fires that far north may seem 
innocuous, relatively speaking, since there are not so many people 
there. But they are increasing more rapidly than fires in lower 
latitudes, and they concern climate scientists greatly: the soot and ash 
they give off can blacken ice sheets, which then absorb more of the 
sun's rays and melt more quickly. Another Arctic fire broke out on the 
Russia-Finland border in 2018, and smoke from Siberian fires that summer 
reached all the way to the mainland US. That same month, the 21st 
century's second-deadliest wildfire swept through the Greek seaside, 
killing 100. At one resort, dozens of guests tried to escape the flames 
by descending a narrow stone staircase into the Aegean, only to be 
engulfed along the way, dying literally in each other's arms. There were 
record-breaking fires in the UK, as well, including one on Saddleworth 
Moor that was thought to be defeated - until it emerged again from the 
forest's peat floor, to become the largest British wildfire in living 
memory.

The effects of these fires are not linear or neatly additive. It might 
be more accurate to say that they initiate a new set of biological 
cycles. Scientists warn that the probability of unprecedented rainfalls 
will grow, too - as much as a threefold increase of events like that 
which produced the state's Great Flood of 1862. Mudslides are among the 
clearest illustrations of what new horrors that heralds; in January 
2018, Santa Barbara's low-lying homes were pounded by the mountains' 
detritus cascading down the hillside toward the ocean in an endless 
brown river. One father, in a panic, put his young children up on his 
kitchen's marble countertop, thinking it the strongest feature of the 
house, then watched as a rolling boulder smashed through the bedroom 
where the children had been just moments before. One child who didn't 
make it was found close to two miles from his home, in a gulley traced 
by train tracks close to the waterfront, having been carried there, 
presumably, on a continuous wave of mud. Two miles.

It gets worse. When trees die - by natural processes, by fire, at the 
hands of humans - they release into the atmosphere the carbon stored 
within them, sometimes for as long as centuries. In this way, they are 
like coal. This is why the effect of wildfires on emissions is among the 
most feared climate feedback loops - that the world's forests, which 
have typically been carbon sinks, would become carbon sources, 
unleashing all that stored gas. The impact can be especially dramatic 
when the fires ravage forests arising out of peat. Peatland fires in 
Indonesia in 1997, for instance, released up to 2.6 gigatons (Gt) of 
carbon - 40% of the average annual global emissions level. And more 
burning only means more warming only means more burning. Wildfires make 
a mockery of the technocratic approach to emissions reduction.

In the Amazon, 100,000 fires were found to be burning in 2017. At 
present, its trees take in a quarter of all the carbon absorbed by the 
planet's forests each year. But in 2018, Jair Bolsonaro was elected 
president of Brazil, promising to open the rainforest to development - 
which is to say, deforestation. How much damage can one person do to the 
planet? A group of Brazilian scientists has estimated that between 2021 
and 2030, Bolsonaro's deforestation would release the equivalent of 
13.12 Gt of carbon. In 2017, the US, with all of its aeroplanes and 
automobiles and coal plants, emitted about 5 Gt.

This is not simply about wildfires; each climate threat promises to 
trigger similarly brutal cycles. The fires should be terrorising enough, 
but it is the cascading chaos that reveals the true cruelty of climate 
change - it can upend and turn violently against us everything we have 
ever thought to be stable. Homes become weapons, roads become death 
traps, air becomes poison. And the idyllic mountain vistas around which 
generations of entrepreneurs and speculators have assembled entire 
resort communities become, themselves, indiscriminate killers.
And yet I am optimistic
Since I first began writing about warming, I've often been asked whether 
I see any reason for optimism. The thing is, I am optimistic.

Warming of 3 or 3.5C is, I'd wager, the likeliest range this century, 
given conventional decarbonisation and the existing - dispiriting - pace 
of change. It would unleash suffering beyond anything that humans have 
ever experienced. But it is not a fatalistic scenario; in fact, it's a 
whole lot better than where we are headed without action - north of 4C 
by 2100, and the perhaps six or even more degrees of warming in the 
centuries to come. We may conjure new solutions, in the form of 
carbon-capture technology, which would extract CO2 from the air, or 
geoengineering, which would cool the planet by suspending gas in the 
atmosphere, or other now-unfathomable innovations. These could bring the 
planet closer to a state we would today regard as merely grim, rather 
than apocalyptic.

I've often been asked whether it's moral to reproduce in this climate, 
whether it is fair to the planet or, perhaps more importantly, to the 
children. As it happens, last year I had a child, Rocca. Part of that 
choice was delusion, that same wilful blindness: I know there are 
climate horrors to come, some of which will inevitably be visited on 
her. But those horrors are not yet scripted. The fight is, definitively, 
not yet lost - in fact, will never be lost, so long as we avoid 
extinction. And I have to admit, I am also excited, for everything that 
Rocca and her sisters and brothers will see, will witness, will do.

She will be entering old age at the close of the century, the endstage 
bookmark on all of our projections for warming. In between, she will 
watch the world doing battle with a genuinely existential threat, and 
the people of her generation making a future for themselves, and the 
generations they bring into being, on this planet. And she won't just be 
watching it, she will be living it - quite literally the greatest story 
ever told. It may well bring a happy ending.

  Western liberals contort their consumption into performances of moral 
or environmental purity - less beef, more Teslas, fewer flights
Climate change is not an ancient crime we are tasked with solving now; 
we are destroying our planet every day, often with one hand as we 
conspire to restore it with the other. Which means we can also stop 
destroying it, in the same style - collectively, haphazardly, in all the 
most quotidian ways, in addition to the spectacular-seeming ones. The 
project of unplugging the entire industrial world from fossil fuels is 
intimidating, and must be done in fairly short order - by 2040, many 
scientists say, with others guessing 2050. The UN's Intergovernmental 
Panel on Climate Change says we'll need to halve our carbon emissions by 
2030 to avoid catastrophe. In the meantime, many avenues are open - wide 
open, if we are not too lazy and too blinkered and too selfish to embark 
upon them.

Perhaps as much as half of British emissions, one report recently 
calculated, come from inefficiencies in construction, discarded and 
unused food, electronics, and clothing; two-thirds of US energy is 
wasted; globally, according to one paper, we are subsidising the fossil 
fuel business to the tune of $5tn each year. None of that has to 
continue. Americans waste a quarter of their food, which means the 
carbon footprint of the average meal is a third larger than it has to 
be. That need not continue. Five years ago, hardly anyone outside the 
darkest corners of the internet had even heard of bitcoin; today, mining 
it consumes more electricity than is generated by all the world's solar 
panels combined, which means that in just a few years we've assembled a 
programme to wipe out the gains of several long, hard generations of 
green energy innovation. It did not have to be that way. And a simple 
change to the algorithm could eliminate that bitcoin footprint entirely.

These are just a few of the reasons to believe that climate nihilism is, 
in fact, another of our delusions. What happens, from here, will be 
entirely our own doing. The planet's future will be determined in large 
part by the arc of growth in the developing world - that's where most of 
the people are, in China and India and, increasingly, sub-Saharan 
Africa. But this is no absolution for the west, which accounts for the 
lion's share of historical emissions, and where the average citizen 
produces many times more than almost anyone in Asia, just out of habit. 
I toss out tons of wasted food and hardly ever recycle; I leave my 
air-conditioning on; I bought into bitcoin at the peak of the market. 
None of that is necessary, either.

But it also isn't necessary for westerners to adopt the lifestyle of the 
global poor. It's estimated that 70% of the energy produced by the 
planet is lost as waste heat. If the world's richest 10% were limited to 
the average European footprint, global emissions would fall by a third. 
And why shouldn't they be? Almost as a prophylactic against climate 
guilt, as the news from science has grown bleaker, western liberals have 
comforted themselves by contorting their own consumption patterns into 
performances of moral or environmental purity - less beef, more Teslas, 
fewer transatlantic flights. But the climate calculus is such that 
individual lifestyle choices do not add up to much, unless they are 
scaled by politics. That should not be impossible, once we understand 
the stakes.
Annihilation is only the very thin tail of warming's very long bell 
curve, and there is nothing stopping us from steering clear of it.
This is an edited extract from The Uninhabitable Earth: A Story Of The 
Future, by David Wallace-Wells (Allen Lane, £20).
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/02/the-devastation-of-human-life-is-in-view-what-a-burning-world-tells-us-about-climate-change-global-warming


[Boeing going]
*Boeing Sued for Negligence in Wildfire That Devastated Malibu*
Boeing Co. was accused of negligence tied to a wildfire that tore 
through Malibu, California, in November and that purportedly started on 
the grounds of the nearby, disused Rocketdyne testing site.

A group of homeowners sued Boeing along with Edison International, the 
parent of the utility they say was at fault in igniting the fire, on 
Tuesday in Los Angeles. They claim Boeing failed to properly manage the 
vegetation on the Santa Susana Field Laboratory and allowed the fire to 
spread to surrounding neighborhoods.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-06/boeing-sued-for-negligence-in-wildfire-that-devastated-malibu


[Yum]
*It's hot enough in Australia to cook an egg on the sidewalk - 
Hotpocalypse - Excerpt*
Hotpocalypse
Published on Feb 6, 2019
While the US is experiencing the polar vortex, Australia is experiencing 
record heat. Watch more: https://youtu.be/_NJ49d5q_wQ
This was originally streamed to the Face page, "Being Liberal" on 2/1/18.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KRTu36WLTc


*This Day in Climate History - February 7, 2007 - from D.R. Tucker*
February 7, 2007:
Air America host Betsy Rosenberg and Competitive Enterprise Institute 
representative Chris Horner discuss the recently released 4th IPCC 
report on the Fox News Channel program "Hannity and Colmes."
http://youtu.be/5k267NdmiFY
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------/

/Archive of Daily Global Warming News 
<https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote/2017-October/date.html> 
/
https://pairlist10.pair.net/pipermail/theclimate.vote

/To receive daily mailings - click to Subscribe 
<mailto:subscribe at theClimate.Vote?subject=Click%20SEND%20to%20process%20your%20request> 
to news digest./

*** Privacy and Security:*This is a text-only mailing that carries no 
images which may originate from remote servers. Text-only messages 
provide greater privacy to the receiver and sender.
By regulation, the .VOTE top-level domain must be used for democratic 
and election purposes and cannot be used for commercial purposes.
To subscribe, email: contact at theclimate.vote 
<mailto:contact at theclimate.vote> with subject subscribe, To Unsubscribe, 
subject: unsubscribe
Also you may subscribe/unsubscribe at 
https://pairlist10.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/theclimate.vote
Links and headlines assembled and curated by Richard Pauli for 
http://TheClimate.Vote <http://TheClimate.Vote/> delivering succinct 
information for citizens and responsible governments of all levels. List 
membership is confidential and records are scrupulously restricted to 
this mailing list.